Friday, August 15, 2014

'Daily Paul' Appears to be Preparing to Shutdown at the End of the Year

I'd like to bring the Daily Paul into the end of the year - 5 months, 3K per month. That is how I arrived at the figure.

And at the beginning of 2015, it will be time for us to part ways and go on about our lives.

Five months should give us plenty of time to debrief, make the contacts that we want to keep, and say goodbye.

It is like we're on a plane, approaching the runway, coming in for the landing. Seatbelt lights come on. Feel free to talk to your fellow passengers, as humans.

First Peter Schiff cancels his daily radio show, now this. Is there stagnation in parts of the libertarian movement?

I really think that this is a reflection of the difference between Rand Paul now in the spotlight versus when Ron Paul was in the spotlight. Ron ALWAYS talked hardcore pure libertarianism, which caused people to search out and try to understand libertarianism, everyday it was new people becoming part of the libertarian movement. As chronicled here, Rand's message is a muddled message, where in one instance he even declared that libertarianism was an albatross around his neck (TIME).

That type of talk is not going to cause people to try and understand more about libertarianism. In fact, judging by the Schiff and Daily Paul actions, the marginal followers of libertarianism are likely drifting away from libertarianism.

10 comments:

For all of our small but disruptive numbers, the MSM has determined to completely shut out the very existence of our ideas. As I keep repeating, no one who isn't already a libertarian and/or Austrian has the slightest familiarity with the NAP, or the concepts of violent intervention, voluntary exchange and economic calculation. Most people don't know and don't want to know.

I had been jousting online quite a bit with the leftists, but had little encounter with the Limbaugh and O'Reilly lovers. I somehow joined a Facebook group run by one of my ex-wife's 879 Republican cousins. They were good on Obamacare and Global Warming.

But on Warmongering and Israel? When I posted about the Israeli editorial calling for genocide of the Palestinians (which was intended to shame the Neocons), the post actually got a "like". Further, since the locals in Palestine didn't actually have a country or their own currency (having been under the Ottomans for centuries), it was OK for the Israelis to murder them and run them off. The guy running the group insists that Saddam really did have WMDs because some canisters of chemical weapons showed up on the streets of Baghdad in 2004.

They are outraged that anyone cares about the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO because the Feds should be investigating "Fast and Furious".

As I learned, those folks are as impervious to facts and morality as are the left "progressives".

The left "progressives" believe that the US government has magical curative powers in domestic affairs especially when they are in charge.

The Neocon "progressives" believe that the US government has magical curative powers in foreign affairs especially when they are in charge. Nothing can budge them from these positions and challenging them is heresy.

All I can say to them is good riddance. They were turning into a Rand Paul apologist website (he's the best deal we've got). It's easier to corrupt libertarianism from within than by the Establishment. That's how conservatism got corrupted. Next up, the libwaps

If you spent enough time there you'd find that there is a great variety of voices and discussion on every issue, including Rand. I'm often criticized for my Rand critiques there sure, but I've also noticed posts that used to get downvoted on him now receive upvotes. It's called winning people over through respectful dialogue. If you don't like what it's becoming, help to change it or get out of the way of those that are. Why would you wish a popular, open forum "good riddance?"

The problem right now as I see it is there are so many people claiming to be libertarian (from tea party to the LP itself to people acting like Rand Paul and others in congress are somehow the exception).

Michael closed registration ("the Ark door is closed", he said) and began banning people around the beginning of the year. The truth is, Michael sold out, and his website has been co-opted by government-paid trolls, which Michael acts as if he's good friends with them (check out how he interacts with Granger, a known troll). I was banned here:http://www.dailypaul.com/313131/glenn-greenwald-exposes-government-trained-and-paid-trolls-on-the-internet?page=2

If you inspect the post "Told you so" in Chrome and go down a couple elements, you can turn off the CSS that hides posts from banned users. I listed a bunch of well-known trolls, to which Michael responded:

"You forgot someone: Yourself. Bye."

I regret ever donating to that site. Michael Nystrom is truly a traitor.

I regret ever donating to that site. Michael Nystrom is truly a traitor."

The above, among other problems associated with the previous Ron Paul campaigns and Rand Paul's unfortunate drifting, is precisely why I avoided donating any money to anyone. Around 2003-2004 it became obvious that virtually anything connected to politics is either exceedingly corrupt or eventually becomes so.

If one wishes to donate money I would recommend The Mises Institute. It has quite a track record of avoiding taking any money from government, special interests, or politicians. Quite frankly, it is the only place I trust.